Open Access Research Article
TRAIL BY MEDIA: AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE INDIAN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION BY : Gokul S
Published Paper
Article Details
TRAIL BY MEDIA:
AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE INDIAN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
The Author: Gokul
S
Designation: 3rd
year, B.A. L.L.B., School of Law.
College:
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
Gokul
S[1]
ABSTRACT
The
media, once a conduit for disseminating information, is now metamorphosing into
a unique agency with a dual allegiance to the public and the courts. This
transformation is exemplified by a consistent portrayal of biased and
agenda-driven debates in the public sphere, especially those pertaining to
issues pending in courts. The normative and constructive role of media in a
democratic society is ideally restricted to public awareness with an inevitable
social responsibility. However, the misuse of the flexibility assured by the
constitutional provisions has resulted in infringing the judicial
administration. The absence of clarity can be observed while exercising the
freedom of the press, which is impliedly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian constitution, in accordance with section 2(c) of the Contempt of the
Courts Act, 1971. The media is turning into a special agency to the public and
to the courts by consistently portraying and publishing biased and
agenda-driven debates pertaining to the issues pending in courts. A key concern
highlighted in the discourse is the issue of contempt of court, a legal concept
that seeks to preserve the dignity and authority of the judiciary. The media's
penchant for sensationalism, coupled with the absence of clear guidelines, has
led to instances where judicial proceedings are prejudiced or obstructed. This
necessitates a recalibration of media governance, focusing on monitoring and
amending existing frameworks to mitigate the risk of contempt.
KEYWORDS
Media,
Judiciary, Courts, Sensationalism, Governance, Democratic System
I.Introduction
In
the contemporary landscape, the media has undergone a transformation, assuming
the role of a 'public court'. This shift sees the media actively inserting
itself into ongoing court proceedings, blurring the crucial distinction between
an accused individual and a convicted one. The foundational principles of
'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' and 'guilt beyond reasonable
doubt' are at risk as the media conducts parallel investigations, constructing
public opinions against the accused even before the formal court process
begins. This phenomenon, often referred to as a "media trial,"
creates a troubling scenario where excessive media coverage prejudices not only
the public but sometimes even influences judges. The consequences are profound,
as the accused, who should be presumed innocent, is prematurely deemed a
criminal, compromising their rights and liberty without due process.
In
the past, journalism operated without the pressure to boost TRP ratings or
sales, allowing journalists to approach their work with sincerity, courage, and
integrity. They diligently investigated charges before forming conclusions,
steering clear of blindly echoing law enforcers, bureaucrats, or politicians.
This approach fostered trust. However, a concerning shift has occurred, giving
rise to the phenomenon of 'media trials,' where the media's self-assumed role
diverges from its traditional responsibilities. Media manipulation for personal
interests has become commonplace, eroding the public's confidence. While
exposing flaws in investigations or the performance of civil servants is within
the media's purview, the line is crossed when it ventures into areas it
shouldn't. The issue arises when the media, in its pursuit, compromises the
sanctity of judicial procedures and the 'right to life with dignity' of accused
individuals and suspects, transforming from a medium of information to a
dispenser of media verdicts and punishments. This misuse of freedom goes beyond
the established legal boundaries. There is a growing need to address this
prejudicial publicity surrounding matters before the court. Introducing legal
provisions that allow for restraining orders on the media becomes essential to
prevent the overstepping of bounds and uphold the integrity of the legal
process.[2]
Beyond
the impact on suspects and accused individuals, excessive media coverage also
takes a toll on the privacy rights of victims and witnesses[3]. The
media's portrayal often casts the police in a negative light, affecting their
morale. Following the initial crime report, the media swiftly shifts to stating
that the police are clueless. The information gathered by the media about
official investigative efforts is then publicized in a manner that allows the
actual perpetrator to escape to safer locations. This continuous media pressure
on the police reaches a point where law enforcement feels obligated to make
public statements to defend their reputation. Another significant concern and
prominent accusation against the concept of a 'media trial' is its potential to
bias the judges overseeing a specific case.[4] The
American perspective suggests that jurors and judges are not susceptible to
influence from media publications, whereas the Anglo-Saxon viewpoint argues
that judges, at least subconsciously if not consciously, may be affected.
Furthermore, there's a fear that members of the public could perceive judges as
being influenced by such media coverage in such circumstances.
II.Diverse Perspectives Through
Theories
Reception
theory by Stuart Hall offers a framework for understanding media texts by
focusing on how audiences interpret and engage with them. Scholars who employ
reception studies are primarily interested in the way people experience and
make sense of cinema and television, and how meaning is derived from this
interaction. A key idea in reception theory is that media texts, such as
individual movies or TV shows, don't possess inherent meaning by themselves. Instead,
meaning is constructed through the dynamic relationship between the audience
and the text, specifically as the viewer watches and processes the content.
Reception theory emphasizes that the context in which a viewer engages with a
film or TV program plays a more significant role in shaping their
interpretation than the text itself. This context includes elements of the
viewer's identity, the circumstances in which they watch the content, their
preconceived notions about the genre and production of the media, and broader
societal, historical, and political influences. In essence, reception theory
situates the viewer within a specific context, considering all the diverse
factors that can impact how they perceive and create meaning from the text.[5]
The
Uses and Gratifications theory examines how individuals interact with the media
and how it impacts them. It delves into how people utilize the media to fulfill
their specific needs and experience satisfaction when those needs are met. In
essence, this theory focuses on what people do with the media, rather than what
the media does to people. It stands in contrast to the Magic Bullet theory,
which posits that the audience is passive and easily influenced by the media.
The Uses and Gratifications theory takes a user-centric approach, emphasizing
the active role of the audience. Even in interpersonal communication,
individuals turn to the media as a source of topics to discuss, expanding their
knowledge and gaining exposure to the world beyond their immediate surroundings.
In
the book "Four Theories of the Press" by Siebert, Peterson, and
Schramm, it is asserted that the concept of pure libertarianism is outdated and
no longer relevant. This shift led to the replacement of the Libertarian theory
with the Social Responsibility theory. The Social Responsibility theory allows
for a free press without censorship while emphasizing the importance of public
discussion regarding the content of the media. It suggests that the media
should be open to public scrutiny and should willingly accept any obligations
stemming from public input or professional self-regulation, or both. This
theory occupies a middle ground between the authoritarian theory and the
libertarian theory, as it grants the media significant freedom while also
imposing external controls. In this framework, media ownership remains in
private hands. The Social Responsibility theory extends beyond simple
"objective" reporting (which focuses on conveying facts) to embrace
"interpretative" reporting, which involves investigative journalism.
Under this theory, news remains grounded in complete facts and truthfulness.
However, the essence of press freedom shifts from merely providing
unadulterated facts to presenting a necessary and analyzed interpretation of
facts, accompanied by clear explanations.
The
Cultivation Theory, formulated by George Gerbner, is a foundational concept in
the field of media effects. This theory posits that individuals who regularly
watch television are more susceptible to the influence of the messages presented
on television. This influence can be so profound that it shapes their worldview
and perceptions, causing them to align with the recurring themes and messages
portrayed on television. Consequently, television is seen as having the
capacity to autonomously contribute to how people construct their understanding
of social reality. Television serves as a source of a wide range of ideas and
perspectives concerning various aspects of society and culture, including race,
gender, and sexuality. With continued exposure, viewers gradually internalize
and adopt these ideas as a kind of framework for navigating their lives. This
continuous immersion in media content instills specific values, beliefs,
attitudes, and desires within individuals. These preconceived notions then
shape their perception of the world and, in turn, influence how they are
perceived by others. As a result, people often find themselves unconsciously
molding their thought processes and behavior based on the content they consume.
In today's society, television has become increasingly pivotal as the primary
medium through which individuals seek to comprehend the intricate web of
societal norms, values, and prevailing attitudes.[6]
III.Intent of the Constituent
Assembly
Before
India gained independence, there was no constitutional or statutory assurance
of individual or media freedom. At best, the press could claim some common law
freedom, as noted by the Privy Council in Channing Arnold v. Emperor. The Privy
Council asserted that the freedom of the journalist is essentially a part of
the broader freedom of the subject. Without statutory law, the journalist's
privilege is no different or higher, and their range of assertions, criticisms,
or comments is as extensive as any other individual's. During the Independence
movement, leaders recognized the paramount importance of freedom of speech and
expression for both individuals and the media. In alignment with this vision,
the Constitution of India, in Article 19(1)(a), guarantees every citizen the fundamental
human right of freedom of speech and expression. Other rights for individuals
were also guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(b), (c), (e), and (g), as well as
Articles 20, 21, and 22. Notably, Article 19(1)(a) could only be suspended
during a state of emergency declared by the President under Articles 352 and
358.
When
drafting the Constitution of India, the members of the Constituent Assembly
were well aware of the governance challenges and societal shifts anticipated in
the future. The extensive three-year debates in the Constituent Assembly
resulted in formulating a set of rights applicable to individuals of various
castes and creeds, transcending national, social, and cultural boundaries. The
framers of the Constitution demonstrated remarkable statesmanship and
foresight. Upon the conclusion of the debates, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman
of the Constitution Drafting Committee, expressed confidence in the
workability, flexibility, and strength of the Constitution. He believed it was
capable of holding the country together during both peacetime and wartime. Dr.
Ambedkar even suggested that if issues arose under the new Constitution, the
fault would lie with the flawed nature of men rather than any shortcomings of
the Constitution itself.[7]
The
Constituent Assembly extensively deliberated on whether a distinct provision
should be included for the freedom of the press. Drawing inspiration from the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, it was
ultimately decided that a separate provision was unnecessary. This decision
stemmed from the belief that the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression,
as outlined in Article 19(1)(a), inherently covered the press. Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar encapsulated this perspective by stating that the press is essentially
a manifestation of an individual or citizen. According to him, the press
possesses no special rights beyond those available to individual citizens.
Editors and managers of the press are regarded as ordinary citizens, exercising
their right to expression when contributing to newspapers. Hence, in Dr.
Ambedkar's view, there is no need for a distinct mention of the freedom of the
press, as it is inherently encompassed within the broader right of expression.[8]
The
significance of freedom of the press was underscored by India's first Prime
Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who expressed a preference for a completely
free press despite the inherent risks, rather than a suppressed or regulated
one.[9]
The judicial recognition of the importance of press freedom in a parliamentary
democracy has been reiterated by superior courts, even though Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate this freedom. Courts have
consistently invalidated legislative and administrative measures that encroach
upon press freedom, acknowledging its crucial role in the envisioned system of
parliamentary democracy. A review of various judgments reveals that the Supreme
Court has acknowledged diverse aspects of the freedom of speech and expression.
This recognition extends to both the content of speech and expression, as well
as the means through which communication occurs. The encompassing nature of
this freedom includes the right to express oneself through spoken words,
writing, printing, pictures, or any other mode. It involves the rights to
circulate, criticize, receive information, express beyond national boundaries,
report court and legislative proceedings, advertise, and engage in rebuttal.
The communication of ideas is recognized through any medium, be it newspapers,
magazines, or movies.[10]
IV.Law Commission of India
In
its 200th report, titled "Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial
Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971)," the Law Commission has proposed the enactment of a law that would
prohibit the media from reporting anything that could prejudice the rights of
the accused in criminal cases, starting from the time of arrest through the
investigation and trial stages. According to the commission, such reporting
would be considered criminal contempt of court. If these provisions within the
Act impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, the commission argues
that these restrictions would be legally justifiable. The recommendation
includes an amendment to Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the
current provision, these publications would only be classified as contempt
after the chargesheet is filed in a criminal case, but the commission suggests
that such restrictions should be applicable from the moment of the accused's
arrest. The report suggests the importance of providing training to media
professionals in specific legal areas. This training should encompass a clear
understanding of the extent of the rights granted under Article 19(1)(a) and
the boundaries defined by Article 19(2), which dictate what can and cannot be
published. Media personnel should also be well-versed in various aspects of
constitutional law, human rights, the protection of life and liberty, and the
legal framework concerning contempt of court.[11]
V.Divergent Interpretations to Media
Democracy
In
a democratic system, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary are
often called the three pillars of governance, while the press is commonly
regarded as the fourth pillar. The press is an institution with significant
power and influence, and as such, it must uphold a sense of responsibility and
be held accountable for its actions. In 1927, Bhagat Singh expressed his
concerns about the deteriorating quality of journalism in an article published
in Kirati. He lamented that a profession once held in high esteem had, in his
view, lost its integrity. Singh observed that some journalists were
sensationalizing stories and inciting conflicts by publishing provocative
headlines that pitted people against each other. Riots had even erupted in
multiple places due to such articles. The underlying issue is the erosion of
the media's credibility, which raises the question of how facts are being
presented.
“The
need for Independent Judges and a Free Press in a Democracy” by Lord Neuberger,
a former President of the UK Supreme Court and Chair of the High-Level Panel of
Legal Experts on Media Freedom, along with Ms. Amal Clooney, a Barrister and
Deputy Chair of the same panel, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Director of the IBA
Human Rights Institute, and a Member of the High-Level Panel, and Mr. Can
Yeginsu, a Barrister and a panel member, are individuals with extensive legal
expertise. The High-Level Panel is supported by the International Bar
Association's Human Rights Institute, which serves as its Secretariat. Their
article claims that judicial independence is critical for ensuring that judges
have the freedom to determine when government actions or decisions, and actions
by others, violate the law, especially concerning individual rights, including
fundamental or human rights. They are also responsible for deciding on
appropriate remedies. Procedures like judicial review and tools such as
statutory interpretation empower the judiciary to rectify instances of
government overreach and to ensure that the government operates within the
boundaries set by the law. Courts often serve as the primary avenue for
achieving this because of their unique authority and institutional separation
from the legislative and executive branches. Safeguarding judicial integrity
and independence is paramount in the effort to protect human rights at the
national level. This is why many countries implement anti-corruption measures
to prevent powerful and affluent individuals from undermining the rule of law.
The
rule of law is widely recognized as a fundamental requirement for any civilized
society. Central to the rule of law is the presence of an independent judiciary
that is accessible to all citizens. In addition to this, freedom of expression
is a cornerstone in a democratic society, where both the courts and the media
play crucial and complementary roles. These institutions work together to
ensure transparency, hold those in power accountable, protect individual
rights, and shed light on matters of public interest. They also serve as checks
and balances for each other. The media is often called the watchdog of
democracy, as it identifies shortcomings in democratic processes and demands
responsibility from elected officials. Similarly, judges play a vital role in
holding the government accountable when it deviates from the law and in
safeguarding individual rights. Freedom of expression is considered one of the
most essential rights in this context.[12]
In
recent years, the freedom of the media and the legitimate work of journalists
have been threatened by populist leaders, even in ostensibly democratic
nations. Journalists and media organizations have been accused of disseminating
"fake news" and other unfounded charges. Authoritarian leaders worldwide
have a history of attacking, and in some cases, criminalizing or even,
regrettably, harming journalists who offer alternative perspectives, reveal
corruption and misconduct, and strive to establish accountability.
Unfortunately, leaders in countries that have traditionally championed freedom
of expression have made statements that embolden these authoritarian leaders to
intensify their attacks. Both the judiciary and the media share a common
feature: unless they are undermined or silenced, they represent a genuine
challenge to corrupt and undemocratic regimes and strike fear in those regimes
that seek to maintain or strengthen their hold on power.
Governments
that claim to support and uphold media freedom, including members of the Media
Freedom Coalition in the United Kingdom, should make concerted efforts to
preserve the independence and credibility of their own judiciaries. They should
also demonstrate a commitment to the principle of open justice. These
governments should function as a "Coalition of the Committed,"
setting an example through concrete actions and encouraging other nations to
follow suit. The High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom will
continue to offer guidance to these governments and monitor their responses to
its recommendations. When the media is silenced and journalists are restricted
in their work, a crucial element of a functioning democracy is stifled. This
means that an institution vital to an open society, one that aims to ensure
accountability, expose injustices, inform the public about issues of interest,
and act as a bridge between the people and their representatives, is
effectively incapacitated. The loss of a free and independent media essentially
signifies the loss of democracy.[13]
In
the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), the Supreme
Court elucidated the detrimental impact of the State's undue influence on trial
proceedings. The Court outlined five fundamental components of a fair and
unbiased trial: the presence of an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, a
courtroom atmosphere characterized by judicial composure, the absence of
prejudice against the accused, victim, or the cause of the case, and,
importantly, the assurance that witnesses are not subjected to coercion,
bribery, threats, or any other form of undue influence. It can be strongly
argued that media trials neglect all five of these essential elements, thereby
undermining the integrity of the legal process.[14]
In
the case of Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami (2017), the plaintiff filed a
lawsuit against the defendants, seeking compensation and damages for making
defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The plaintiff also requested a
permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from reporting on or
broadcasting any content related to the death of Mrs. Sunanda Pushkar until the
investigation was complete. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to prevent the
defendant from maligning or defaming them in any way. The Delhi High Court in
this case recognized the importance of balancing the right to free speech with
the right to a fair trial. The court acknowledged that the defendants had the
right to present their stories but emphasized the need for this right to be
exercised in a restrained and balanced manner. The court refrained from issuing
any further orders in the case after receiving assurances from the defendant
that they would exercise restraint in their future reporting.[15]
In
2012, the arrest of Indrani Mukerjea in the Sheena Bora murder case revealed a
shocking twist – Sheena was not Indrani's sister, as initially claimed, but her
daughter. The media extensively covered the case, shedding light on the
sensational details. Despite her arrest, Indrani never admitted to having two
children, consistently maintaining that Sheena was her sister. The murder case
also exposed the dubious financial dealings of Indrani Mukerjea and her
husband, Peter Mukerjea. Their manipulation of facts allowed them to evade
legal action for three years. The media played a significant role in exposing
the personal life of Indrani Mukerjea, prompting a fresh debate on the ethical
boundaries in the murder trial. The intense scrutiny by the media extended beyond
the investigation, delving into Indrani's character and personal life. This
intrusion sparked controversy and raised questions about journalistic ethics,
as the media seemed to overstep boundaries by meddling in the private matters
of the accused.[16]
VI.Conclusion
Any
institution, whether it's the legislature, executive, judiciary, or
bureaucracy, is prone to misuse when it exceeds its rightful jurisdiction and
functions. Occasionally, these activities beyond established boundaries can be
a hidden blessing, as seen in the case of judicial activism. Similarly, media
trials, along with groundbreaking sting operations, play a commendable role in
closely monitoring police administration and executive actions. However,
there's a crucial need for reasonable self-restraint, with a focus on ensuring
fair trials and respecting court procedures responsibly. It's imperative for
the media to recognize the profound impact of its publications on the audience.
Thus, there exists a moral obligation for the media to convey the truth,
considering the right timing. While the print media has reached a stage of
awareness regarding legal guidelines and ethical limits, the electronic media
is in an experimental phase, relying on a 'trial and error' approach to
determine what to broadcast and, more importantly, what not to. Eventually, a
time will come when the electronic media, too, will be well-regulated by
self-censored guidelines, allowing us to achieve the vision of a 'completely
free press,' as envisioned by our first Prime Minister, without compromising on
ethical considerations.
[1] Author is a third Year student pursuing law at school
of law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, India.
[2] Imrich, D.J., Mullin, C., & Linz, D. (1995). Media,
trials and echo effects: Media and criminal justice policy. National Criminal
Justice Reference Service. Retrieved October 29, 2023, from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/media-trials-and-echo-effects-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-
[3] Das, N. (2020, November 12). Media trials in India: An unwritten carve-out to the right to privacy?
International Association of Privacy Professionals. Retrieved from
https://iapp.org/news/a/media-trials-in-india-an-unwritten-carve-out-to-the-right-to-privacy/
[4] Resta, G. (n.d.). Trying
Cases in the Media: A Comparative Overview. Jstor.org. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27654683
[5] Quality Research International. (n.d.). Reception theory.
Social Research. Retrieved October 29, 2023, from https://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/receptiontheory.htm
[6] Shrum, L. (2017). Cultivation theory: Effects and
underlying processes. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.),
The international encyclopedia of media effects (Vol. 1, pp. 1–12). John Wiley
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.WBIEME0040
[7] Legal Service India. (n.d.). Constitution of India:
Freedom of speech and expression. Retrieved October 29, 2023,from
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-572-constitution-of-india-freedom-of-speech-and-expression.html
[8] Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs.
(2021, June 21). In Modi’s India, press freedom is curbed and journalists are
under threat for doing their jobs. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and
World Affairs. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/in-modi-s-india-press-freedom-is-curbed-and-journalists-are-under-threat-for-doing-their-jobs
[9] Ramchandani, S. (2020, 5 10). “The Constitutionality
of Media Trials in India – A Critique”. Pen Acclaims.
http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Srishti-Ramchandani.pdf
[10] Das, D. (2016). Right to speech and Freedom of Media– A
Critical Analysis. Paripex - Indian Journal of Research, 5(3).
[11] Sanchez, J. (2019). Media framing and changes in public
opinion concerning immigration legislation. (Publication No. 22619472)
[Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/8084
[12] Hindustan Times. (2023, February 27). In 3 months, prepare
guidelines to check media trial: Top court to govt. Hindustan Times. Retrieved
October 29, 2023, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-3-months-prepare-guidelines-to-check-media-trial-top-court-to-govt-101694629671649.html
[14] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC
158 (India)
[15] Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami, (2017) SCCOnLine Del
12286 (India)
[16] Anderson, R., & Killenberg, G. M. (1992). Journalistic
listening and “slanted empathy”: Ethical implications of the Janet Malcolm
accusations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 7(2), 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.1992.10499109
Article Information
TRAIL BY MEDIA: AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE INDIAN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION BY : Gokul S
Authors: Gokul S
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/16
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.